Click HERE to read the latest edition of Revolution

Click HERE to take the Inside HQ Quiz

On 11 November 1997, Michael Schumacher elbowed his way through a media scrum to get through the front door of Motor Sports House in Colnbrook (home at the time to the Motor Sports Association and now known as Motorsport UK House in reflection of the organisation’s current name).

Once inside, he moved through to the Tribunal Room for one of the most infamous disciplinary hearings in the history of Formula 1. Press interest was at fever pitch. The court heard what Schumacher had to say in his own defence, considered the facts, then disqualified him from that season’s championship. Although that was an FIA hearing, the very same room is used to this day by the highest court in UK motorsport.

As an FIA member club, Motorsport UK is bound by the International Sporting Code, which requires all National Sporting Authorities to have a National Court. In accordance with that code, the National Court is a separate body to Motorsport UK and it normally sits once a month. Its main objective is to protect competitors at all levels and ensure that the rules and regulations governing the sport are upheld. Indeed, without such a robust, independent judicial system, motorsport in this country would cease to operate fairly. In fact, it would cease to operate at all.

Jamie Champkin, Motorsport UK Regulatory Counsel and Disciplinary Officer, is as familiar with the inner workings of the National Court as anybody. On 11 November 1997, Michael Schumacher elbowed his way through a media scrum to get through the front door of Motor Sports House in Colnbrook (home at the time to the Motor Sports Association and now known as Motorsport UK House in reflection of the organisation’s current name).

48 Revolution – April 2020 INSIDEHQ “The panel of permanent judges is headed by three barristers, all of whom have experience of competing in motorsport, and they’re led by Mark Heywood QC,” explains Champkin. “The fourth member of the panel is an extremely experienced international motorsport steward and also a lay magistrate. Therefore, the chairmen of the court are all experienced in delivering the administration of justice and have between them approximately 150 years of experience.” Additionally, depending on the nature of the case, the judges can call on the guidance of experienced motorsport officials such as race stewards to advise on driving standards. “The independence of the court is absolutely vital,” says Champkin, explaining that despite being funded by Motorsport UK the National Court is a separate body. “If it was not independent then it could not possibly exercise its function ‘judicially’. To act judicially literally means to sit in judgment fairly, taking into account all the available evidence; in other words, the principle of the fair hearing that we are used to in our everyday existence is mirrored in the judicial structure of our sport.”

A hearing is only ‘fair’ if all relevant parties have the opportunity to present all admissible evidence, be that witness testimony or documents and images. Crucially, the court upholds the right to cross-examine witnesses, just as any proper court should. “These are basic human rights and are essentially enshrined in the function of the National Court,” says Champkin. Transparency, meanwhile, is every bit as important as a fair hearing. That’s why reports are published in full for all National Court cases, both on Motorsport UK’s website and in the pages of this magazine. While clerks of the course and race stewards typically do an excellent job during race meetings, the National Court can often be better placed to reach a fair verdict – not least because a case will be heard a significant time after the fact, allowing new evidence to come to light. “A recent example of this involved judicial proceedings taken against a competitor in a race that determined the outcome of a championship,” says Champkin.

Written reports and limited moving images had been made available to race officials on the day of the event, and they reached their conclusions accordingly. “Transparency is every bit as important as a fair hearing. That’s why reports are published in full for all National Court cases, both on Motorsport UK’s website and in the pages of this magazine” 49 Revolution – April 2020 “When the case came to appeal in the National Court, however, it transpired there was a considerable body of additional moving image evidence available, which gave an entirely different factual perspective on the events that had and, importantly, had not taken place. When all of that evidence was taken into account by the court, the conviction of the competitor was overturned and he was reinstated in the results with consequential effect.” Justice, in other words, had been done. An important function of the court is to sit as the appeal body for technical cases. If a competitor has been disqualified on technical grounds and chooses to appeal, for instance, the case will be heard in the National Court.

“In these cases, the procedure is entirely by written submissions which are exchanged for comment. The UK court is fortunate to have access to technical and legal expertise of the highest calibre to determine such detailed cases involving the interpretation of regulations in a practical context.” Technical infringements, however, make up only a small proportion of the National Court’s work. More common are appeals, plus investigatory and disciplinary cases. The term Champkin uses to describe the latter is “an excess of passion for the sport”.

That might concern parents of a young competitor causing problems in parc fermé, for instance, feeling that some slight has been directed towards their child. Or it might be a driver effectively using his or her vehicle as a weapon on track. Understandably, such cases must be heard by a fair and independent judiciary so that other competitors can be protected and the highest behavioural standards be upheld. “By the time cases are heard,” adds Champkin, “it is true to say the heat has gone out of a situation and therefore the person appearing before the court is presenting in a different light altogether. That is where the judicial ability of the court to strike a balance between maintaining the regulations and arriving at a just outcome is critical and in turn is the justification for the composition of the court.” In recent years, Champkin has noticed a significant rise in the level of abuse being directed towards competitors and officials on social media.

In response, Champkin and his colleagues have worked closely with Motorsport UK’s safeguarding team to refine their regulations and policies to help manage such situations. The intention is to deal with problems on social media in a proportionate manner, but with a zero-tolerance approach. Where necessary, Champkin says he “will have not the slightest hesitation in putting the conduct before the National Court.” Occasionally, technical infringements and disciplinary hearings are one and the same – the common term in this instance is, of course, cheating. Champkin recalls one particular case: “Some years ago, a very significant case of what can only be described as deliberate and persistent cheating arose involving kart engines with a fully established machine shop having been set up for the purpose. The miscreants were banned from the sport and fined what was then the maximum of £26,500.” The maximum fine today is £58,195 and can be enforced, if necessary, by means of the County Court debt mechanism.

After all, by taking out a competition licence, a motorsport competitor is contractually agreeing to be fined in case of any wrongdoing. The Tribunal Room at Motorsport UK House has been witness to an enormous number of cases over the years, be they technical, disciplinary or investigatory in nature. None has been more prominent than Michael Schumacher’s hearing in 1997. The FIA court found that the then two-time world champion had intentionally hit Jacques Villeneuve’s car at Jerez, Spain, six weeks earlier in an effort to end the Canadian’s race and claim a third title. The German became the first F1 driver to be disqualified from an entire season. That case underlined the importance of a fair and independent judiciary in motorsport – at all its levels.

Click HERE to take the Inside HQ Quiz

Click HERE to read the latest edition of Revolution